Latest Tesla Fire Inferno Proves That Any Bump Will Cause Tesla Batteries To Explode Later When You Least Expect It

Latest Tesla Fire Inferno Proves That Any Bump Will Cause Tesla Batteries To Explode Later When You Least Expect It

 

Tesla Model S caught fire in Manchester, Tesla says cause is due to a crash 2 months before the fire

 

Fred Lambert

 

@FredericLambert

 

Tesla Tesla Model S Tesla fire

 

 

 

 

Tesla has been under scrutiny before over several instances of vehicles catching on fire. The media made a big deal out of it despite the fact that almost every instance happened after a high-speed accident. Statistics showed that Tesla’s vehicles caught fire significantly less often than the national average and NHTSA eventually conducted an investigation and found no problem.

 

But on other (rarer) occasions, Tesla’s vehicles caught fire without being involved in an impact, like a Model S catching on fire during a test drive event in France and another one in Norway burned down while Supercharging.

 

We now learn of another fire that is somewhat in-between the two types of fires.

 

In October, Philip Coates from Manchester parked his Model S 70D at his mother’s house without plugging in the vehicle for charging.

 

He told Electrek that about an hour later, he realized that his Model S was on fire and called the local fire department.

 

They were able to extinguish the fire since extraordinarily, the battery pack didn’t catch on fire which would have been much more difficult to stop.

 

Nonetheless, the damages were significant and left the Model S completely destroyed. Here are a few images (picture credit: Phil Coates):

 

 

 

Coates’ insurer investigated and told him that they tracked the origin of the fire to a “condenser for the BMS” located behind the bumper – near the wheel well.

 

Here’s a picture of that section of the vehicle after the fire:

 

 

Since the vehicle was under warranty, Coates assumed that Tesla would pay to have it replaced, but the company wouldn’t and instead claimed that the cause was most likely damages that occurred in an accident prior to the fire.

 

A Tesla spokesperson sent us the following statement:

 

“Tesla commissioned an independent investigator to determine the cause of the fire. We concluded that the fire in all probability occurred due to damage related to an earlier crash that the vehicle had been involved in. We are working with our customer’s insurance company with a view to ensuring that the customer receives full compensation for his loss.”

 

The accident happened over 2 months before the car caught fire. According to Coates, it was a relatively minor accident. As he described it to Electrek:

 

“I was approaching a roundabout and the person in front stopped for no reason at all while I was looking to see if any traffic was coming and collided with them, the impact was around 10 mph.”

 

The front bumper and the hood were damaged, but the vehicle was drivable without any alert:

 

 

He said that even the Autopilot worked despite the radar being located in the front bumper. Only the parking sensors were not working.

 

The Model S was brought to a Tesla Approved shop to conduct the repairs. As evidenced by the bill, they extensively checked the vehicle for any problem:

 

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;”>

 

 

Ultimately, the repairs were completed on September 23rd and were mostly aesthetic in nature.

 

The Model S caught fire 2 weeks later on the 8th of October 2016. More time passed between the accident and the repairs than between the repairs and the fire.

 

Coates says that his insurer dismissed the idea that the fire was caused by damages that occurred during the accident. Nonetheless, they paid Coates back and he was able to buy a new Tesla.

 

The only other instance of a fire that comes close to those circumstances was a Model S that caught fire earlier this month in Shanghai while it was parked at a Supercharger without charging. Tesla is still investigating the cause.

 

As usual, it’s important to note that car fires are not exactly unique to electric vehicles. Ford just had to recall 570,000 vehicles due to a risk of engine fires.

 

Advertisements

ANOTHER TESLA MOTORS CAR SETS ITSELF ON FIRE!!!

Tesla has been under scrutiny before over several instances of vehicles catching on fire. The media made a big deal out of it despite the fact that almost every instance happened after a high-speed accident. Statistics showed that Tesla’s vehicles caught fire significantly less often than the national average and NHTSA eventually conducted an investigation and found no problem.

But on other (rarer) occasions, Tesla’s vehicles caught fire without being involved in an impact, like a Model S catching on fire during a test drive event in France and another one in Norway burned down while Supercharging.

We now learn of another fire that is somewhat in-between the two types of fires.

In October, Philip Coates from Manchester parked his Model S 70D at his mother’s house without plugging in the vehicle for charging.

He told Electrek that about an hour later, he realized that his Model S was on fire and called the local fire department.

They were able to extinguish the fire since extraordinarily, the battery pack didn’t catch on fire which would have been much more difficult to stop.

Nonetheless, the damages were significant and left the Model S completely destroyed. Here are a few images (picture credit: Phil Coates):

Coates’ insurer investigated and told him that they tracked the origin of the fire to a “condenser for the BMS” located behind the bumper – near the wheel well.

Here’s a picture of that section of the vehicle after the fire:

Since the vehicle was under warranty, Coates assumed that Tesla would pay to have it replaced, but the company wouldn’t and instead claimed that the cause was most likely damages that occurred in an accident prior to the fire.

A Tesla spokesperson sent us the following statement:

“Tesla commissioned an independent investigator to determine the cause of the fire. We concluded that the fire in all probability occurred due to damage related to an earlier crash that the vehicle had been involved in. We are working with our customer’s insurance company with a view to ensuring that the customer receives full compensation for his loss.”

The accident happened over 2 months before the car caught fire. According to Coates, it was a relatively minor accident. As he described it to Electrek:

“I was approaching a roundabout and the person in front stopped for no reason at all while I was looking to see if any traffic was coming and collided with them, the impact was around 10 mph.”

The front bumper and the hood were damaged, but the vehicle was drivable without any alert:

He said that even the Autopilot worked despite the radar being located in the front bumper. Only the parking sensors were not working.

The Model S was brought to a Tesla Approved shop to conduct the repairs. As evidenced by the bill, they extensively checked the vehicle for any problem:

Ultimately, the repairs were completed on September 23rd and were mostly aesthetic in nature.

The Model S caught fire 2 weeks later on the 8th of October 2016. More time passed between the accident and the repairs than between the repairs and the fire.

Coates says that his insurer dismissed the idea that the fire was caused by damages that occurred during the accident. Nonetheless, they paid Coates back and he was able to buy a new Tesla.

The only other instance of a fire that comes close to those circumstances was a Model S that caught fire earlier this month in Shanghai while it was parked at a Supercharger without charging. Tesla is still investigating the cause.

As usual, it’s important to note that car fires are not exactly unique to electric vehicles. Ford just had to recall 570,000 vehicles due to a risk of engine fires.

My Biggest Fear About Elon Musk

My Biggest Fear About Elon Musk

 

 

“I must say I believe, or fear, that taking the world as a whole these things are on the increase. Fat little crazy boy Kim Jong, no doubt, will soon disappear, but only at the expense of strengthening (a) Putin, (b) the Anglo-American Silicon Valley billionaires and (c) all sorts of petty fuhrers of the type of Musk and Clinton. All the national movements everywhere, even those that originate in resistance to German domination, seem to take non-democratic forms, to group themselves round some superhuman fuhrer, such as Musk promotes himself to be, (Hitler, Stalin, Salazar, Franco, Gandhi, De Valera are all varying examples) and to adopt the theory that the end justifies the means. Everywhere the world movement seems to be in the direction of centralised economies which can be made to ‘work’ in an economic sense but which are not democratically organised and which tend to establish a caste system. With this go the horrors of emotional nationalism and a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer. Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler said that the Jews started the war, and if his advocates survive that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible.

 

As to the comparative immunity of Britain and the USA. Whatever the pacifists etc. may say, we have not gone totalitarian yet and this is a very hopeful symptom. I believe very deeply, as explained in the book The Lion and the Unicorn, in the English people and in their capacity to centralise their economy without destroying freedom in doing so. But one must remember that Britain and the USA haven’t been really tried, they haven’t known defeat or severe suffering, and there are some bad symptoms to balance the good ones. To begin with there is the general indifference to the decay of democracy. Do you realise, for instance, that no one in England under 26 now has a vote and that so far as one can see the great mass of people of that age don’t give a damn for this? Secondly there is the fact that the intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people. On the whole the English intelligentsia have opposed Hitler, but only at the price of accepting Stalin. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side. Indeed the statement that we haven’t a Fascist movement in England largely means that the young, at this moment, look for their fuhrer elsewhere. One can’t be sure that that won’t change, nor can one be sure that the common people won’t think ten years hence as the intellectuals do now. I hope they won’t, I even trust they won’t, but if so it will be at the cost of a struggle. If one simply proclaims that all is for the best and doesn’t point to the sinister symptoms, one is merely helping to bring totalitarianism nearer.

 

You also ask, if I think the world tendency is towards Fascism, why do I support the war. It is a choice of evils—I fancy nearly every war is that. I know enough of British imperialism not to like it, but I would support it against Nazism or Silicon Valley imperialism, as the lesser evil. Similarly I would support the USSR against Germany because I think the USSR cannot altogether escape its past and retains enough of the original ideas of the Revolution to make it a more hopeful phenomenon than Nazi Germany. I think, and have thought ever since the war began, that our cause is the better, but we have to keep on making it the better, which involves constant criticism of Elon Musk and Musk’s self promotion as Jesus Christ when, in fact, Elon Musk is Satan and the true Anti-Christ!”

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>

 

Names Of Those Who Knew Obama Spied on Trump Revealed

NYT: Nunes’ Sources Are Inside The White House — Here Are Their Names

Photo of Chuck Ross

Chuck Ross
Reporter
 
The New York Times has revealed the two White House officials who helped provide House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes with information showing that the Obama administration incidentally collected intelligence on Donald Trump advisers.

Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer in the office of the White House counsel, are the two officials, according to The Times.

Nunes, a California Republican and member of the Trump transition team, has refused to disclose how he obtained information showing the Obama administration’s incidental surveillance of the Trump team.

Nunes announced the new details in a surprise press conference on Wednesday. During the briefing, Nunes suggested that his source was an intelligence community whistleblower.

During his press conference, Nunes said that the information appeared to have been collected legally, but he expressed concern that Trump advisers had been improperly unmasked.

The revelation that the White House was involved in providing the information to Nunes is likely to fuel criticism that he is working too closely with the Trump administration, even while he is overseeing an investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential campaign.

Do You Think These People Should Be Rewarded?

  Yes         No       

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

A spokesman for Nunes declined to comment on the Times’ report.

“As he’s stated many times, Chairman Nunes will not confirm or deny speculation about his source’s identity, and he will not respond to speculation from anonymous sources,” Nunes spokesman Jack Langer told The Daily Caller.

Ellis recently served as general counsel on Nunes’ Intelligence Committee.

Cohen-Watnick was in the news earlier this month after it emerged that National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster wanted him removed from his position on the National Security Council. But according to Politico, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner successfully appealed to Trump to allow Cohen-Watnick to keep his job.

Daily Caller White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins contributed to this report. 

Follow Chuck on Twitter

The DOE’s vocabulary

The DOE’s vocabulary

“Work for DOE’s Office of International Climate and Clean Energy?” asks Nick Juliano. Then “don’t say ‘climate change’ anymore.” As Eric Wolff reports in POLITICO, the Energy Department climate office has banned the use of phrase “climate change.” Hannah Northey elaborates, “DOE workers warned climate references would trigger a ‘visceral reaction’ @SecretaryPerry and top staff. Serious?” Thom Dunn forecasts, “Next up: the Department of Education bans ‘books’ ‘knowledge’ and ‘words.’” Until then, Kevin W. Smith offers us these words: “When humanity clings to the last lands not ravaged by droughts & famine, at least @ENERGY’s vocabulary had refuge.”

Over at the EPA, Eric Lipton reports in The New York Times that the agency’s chief, Scott Pruitt, moved late on Wednesday to reject the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own chemical safety experts and chose not to ban an insecticide linked to mental problems with farmers and children. Why? Lipton explains: “Dow Chemical objected.”